Administrative Law – Accelerated Promotion – Exemplary Performance:

Appellant sought retrospective promotion for outstanding performance during a militant attack at Charare Sharif – Appellant was commended for bravery by senior officers but was only granted a cash reward and not out-of-turn promotion, unlike his colleagues [Paras 4-7, 9].

Promotion Policy – Relevant Circulars:

Appellant’s claim based on Circular No. 14-GR of 1990, which provided for accelerated promotion for exemplary performance in combating militancy – High Court’s dismissal based on later Circular dated 6th January 2000, which introduced criteria of "consistently exceptional performance" [Paras 8, 14].

Judicial Review – Consideration of Material Evidence:

Court’s role to ensure no injustice caused – Recommendations by senior officers and commendations suggest appellant’s performance merited special consideration – High Court overlooked the difference in criteria between the two circulars [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to be reconsidered under the Circular No. 14-GR of 1990 – Appellant’s promotion to be reconsidered for retrospective effect, and if granted, corresponding benefits to be awarded – Exercise to be completed within three months [Paras 16-18].

Service Law – Promotion – Amendments to Eligibility Criteria:

Appellants were rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner due to amendments in the Uttar Pradesh Excise Group 'A' Service Rules, 1983, effective 17th May 1999 – Appeal against non-consideration under pre-amendment rules for vacancies arising prior to the amendment [Paras 1-7, 16-19].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Application – Right to Promotion:

Appellants argued that vacancies arising before the amendment should be filled under the old rules – Court held that the right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration, and the current rules apply – No statutory duty to fill vacancies within a specified timeframe under the 1983 Rules [Paras 20-22].

Government Discretion and Stagnation:

State's discretion to amend eligibility criteria was based on administrative rationale – Technical and Statistical Officers deemed unsuitable for Deputy Excise Commissioner roles due to lack of relevant experience – Court suggested government reconsider promotion avenues to prevent stagnation of affected officers [Paras 24-26, 29-30].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Amendments valid and applicable to all considerations post-amendment – Government advised to re-evaluate promotion policies for impacted roles to address stagnation concerns [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Private Defense – Proportionality of Force:

High Court acquitted respondents based on their right to private defense – Prosecution failed to prove respondents exceeded their right of private defense – Injuries on respondents deemed minor and caused by blunt objects, while fatal injuries on the deceased were caused by axes [Paras 11-12, 19].

Evidentiary Assessment – Witness Credibility – FIR Delay:

High Court discredited prosecution witnesses due to inconsistencies and improvements in their statements – Delayed FIR registration and discrepancies in witness testimonies questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s case – Prosecution failed to explain injuries on respondents or present key witnesses [Paras 13-18].

Medical Evidence – Contradiction with Ocular Testimonies:

Postmortem reports conflicted with prosecution’s account of the assault – Deceased suffered incised wounds only, while no lathi injuries were reported – High Court found ocular evidence unreliable [Para 15].

Decision- Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Conclusions drawn by the High Court were plausible and based on evidence – Respondents entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal [Paras 19-20].

Disability Pension – War Injury Pension – Pre and Post-1996 Retirees:

Appellant, an ex-army officer, invalided out with 50% disability, sought benefits under Ministry of Defence letters dated 31.1.2001 and subsequent instructions, which enhanced disability pensions and extended war injury pensions – Appellant claimed benefits were unjustly restricted to those invalided out post-1.1.1996 [Paras 3-5, 10-11].

Equality Before Law – Article 14 – Liberalization of Pension Schemes:

Restriction of benefits to post-1.1.1996 retirees held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Court ruled liberalization of pension schemes should apply equally to all retirees irrespective of retirement date – Relied on precedents that pensionary benefits must not create unequal classes within the same cadre [Paras 11-13, 17].

Retrospective Application – Ministry of Defence Notifications:

Ministry of Defence letters dated 31.1.2001 and 16.5.2001 clarified that war injury pensions and revised disability pensions were extended to pre-1996 retirees – Appellant entitled to recalculated benefits from 1.1.1996, commuted disability pension at 75%, and arrears with interest [Paras 15-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Appellant granted war injury pension and commuted disability pension at 75% with arrears from 1.1.1996 and 8% interest per annum – Appellant entitled to pension benefits for full 10 years of service, including interest on arrears as per C.S. Sidhu case [Paras 19-20].

Dowry Death – Dying Declarations – Witness Credibility- High Court convicted appellants under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, despite trial court's rejection of dying declarations due to victim's serious condition and lack of testimony from the certifying doctor – High Court relied on witness evidence of dowry demands, which was inconsistent with statements made under Section 161 CrPC [Paras 2, 5, 11].

Presumption under Section 113B IPC – Essential Ingredients- High Court reversed acquittal based on dowry death presumption – Supreme Court held presumption under Section 113B IPC applies only if prosecution establishes death was unnatural, occurred within seven years of marriage, and was preceded by dowry demand – Evidence of dowry demand soon before death not proven [Paras 5, 12].

Judicial Review – Appeal Against Acquittal- Supreme Court emphasized cautious approach in appeal against acquittal – Found prosecution failed to establish key ingredient of dowry demand, leading to overturning High Court's conviction and reinstating trial court’s acquittal [Para 5, 13].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 6].

Constitutional Law – Royalty on Minerals – The appeals challenge the determination of royalty on minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Key issue involves whether such royalty is a tax and the legislative competence of the State to impose it – Supreme Court refers matter to a larger Bench for a comprehensive examination due to conflicting decisions in previous cases​​.

Taxation – Nature of Royalty – Whether royalty determined under Sections 9 and 15(3) of the Act is in the nature of a tax – Supreme Court emphasizes the need to distinguish royalty from tax in the context of legislative powers and implications on federal financial relations​​.

Legislative Competence – State vs. Union Powers – The case examines if State Legislature can levy a tax on mining land under Entry 49, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and its interrelation with Entry 54, List I – Court to analyze the scope of "taxes on mineral rights" and limitations imposed by Parliament relating to mineral development​​​​.

Decision – Reference to Larger Bench – Supreme Court refers several substantial questions of law to a Bench of nine Judges to resolve conflicting interpretations and ensure clarity on the legislative competence and nature of royalties in mining activities – Matters referred include the interpretation of constitutional entries and previous landmark decisions​​​​​​.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – The appellant was initially acquitted by the Trial Court, but the High Court convicted him for murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC – The incident occurred during a quarrel at a restaurant where the appellant stabbed the deceased with a broken bottle – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, citing the reliability of the sole eyewitness (PW.1) and corroborative medical evidence – Conviction justified under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC due to sudden quarrel [Paras 1-88]​​.

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – The Supreme Court found the testimony of PW.1, the injured eyewitness, credible despite the hostile witnesses – Emphasized that minor inconsistencies do not discredit reliable witness testimony, especially from an injured witness present at the scene – Testimony corroborated by prompt medical and police action following the incident [Paras 3-5]​​.

Test Identification Parade – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reliance on the test identification parade where PW.1 identified the appellant – The Court dismissed arguments regarding the appellant's visibility and the reliability of the identification due to dim lighting and intoxication, noting the small size of the restaurant and adequate lighting [Paras 6-7]​​.

Legal Principles – Appeal Against Acquittal – The Supreme Court reiterated that an appellate court must exercise caution in overturning acquittals but can do so if the lower court's judgment is perverse or against the weight of evidence – The High Court's interference was justified given the Trial Court's misreading of evidence and undue emphasis on hostile witness statements [Para 8]​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and imposing a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment – No interference warranted on quantum of sentence considering mitigating factors [Para 9]​​.

Administrative Law – Promotion Procedures – The respondent, a Senior Scientist, challenged the non-promotion decision under the Career Advancement Scheme of ICAR, which allocated 50% marks for personal interviews – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court found the allocation excessive and arbitrary, violating the principles of fair evaluation – Supreme Court upholds the findings, emphasizing that such high weightage for interviews is contrary to established legal principles and leads to subjective assessment [Paras 1-88]​​.

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – The Supreme Court reiterates that while courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary or violate fundamental rights, the excessive weightage given to interviews in this case justified judicial intervention – The decision-making process must adhere to fairness and transparency, especially in public employment [Paras 22-30]​​.

Legal Principles – Weightage of Interview Marks – The Court referred to precedents including Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, emphasizing that interview marks should not disproportionately affect the selection process – Allocation of 50% marks for interviews in promotions is excessive and can lead to arbitrariness [Paras 31-40]​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court directs ICAR to reassess the respondent's promotion without the arbitrary weightage for interviews – Reinforces the need for objective criteria in public employment evaluations [Paras 41-50]​​.

Administrative Law – Drug Price Fixation – The Central Government issued a demand based on drug prices fixed in 1989, which were higher than those fixed in 1986 – High Court quashed the demand, holding it was retrospective and violated statutory provisions – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision, stating the 1989 prices cannot apply retrospectively to transactions from 1981 to 1987 – Demand for Rs. 71.21 crores declared invalid as it was based on a superseded notification​​.

General Clauses Act – Section 6 – Supersession of Notification – Supreme Court discusses the legal effect of supersession, determining that the 1989 notification did not retrospectively affect the liability under the 1986 notification – Supersession replaced the earlier notification without obliterating liabilities incurred under it, supporting the High Court's ruling against retrospective application​​.

Principle of Unjust Enrichment – Central Government's Argument – The Central Government argued that Glaxo India Ltd. should not retain excess amounts charged, invoking the principle of unjust enrichment – Supreme Court rejects this, affirming that statutory and procedural compliance is paramount, and retrospective application would violate legal standards​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court confirms the High Court's decision, quashing the Central Government's demand – Orders that the Central Government reconsider demands based on legally applicable drug prices without retrospective effect​​.